JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal, filed by the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short called 'The Act') against an award dated 8.3.1999, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar in Case No. 197/97. 2. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants under Section 166 of the Act and in consequence awarded to claimants a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of claimants wife Alpana i.e. Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- for his son Asmit aged 2 years. It was however held that since there was a contributory negligence on the part of claimants driver to the extent of 25% and hence claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 75,000/- out of total compensation payable to claimants. It was also held that so far as the death of their son Asmit is concerned, it is not necessary to pay any thing over and above Rs. 50,000/- because the claimants have already been paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of no fault liability under Section 140 ibid. In this view of the matter, the claimants were held entitled to receive only a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation for the death of 2 persons viz. wife aged 27 years and son aged 2 years. It is against this award, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement and also against the finding of contributory negligence recorded against him in causing accident. 3. So 2 questions arise in this appeal. First whether Tribunal was justified in holding that a case of contributory negligence in the ratio of 75% - 25% is made out, so as to allow the Tribunal to reduce the compensation to the extent of 25% out of total compensation determined by the Tribunal. Second, whether quantum of compensation is just or it requires any enhancement in favour of claimant. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, I am inclined to answer both the questions in appellant's favour and in consequence allow the appeal by modifying the impugned award as indicated infra. 5. It is a case of death. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, I am inclined to answer both the questions in appellant's favour and in consequence allow the appeal by modifying the impugned award as indicated infra. 5. It is a case of death. The case of the claimants was that on 22.4.1996 claimant Sanjay was going in his Maruti Car bearing No. UP 32 G-3727 along with his wife (Alpana) and son (Asmit). It is at that time, the car dashed with one tanker bearing No. RJ-23-G-0016 which was going ahead of their car. Due to this dash, wife Alpana and son Asmit died. It is this event, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by claimant who lost his wife and son. It was filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for their death. It was claimed from owner, insurer and driver of the tanker on the allegation that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of the tanker. The non-applicants denied their liability and averred that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of tanker. The claimant examined the witnesses whereas non applicants did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimants held that claimants was liable to the extent of 25% whereas driver of tanker was held liable to the extent of 75% for contributing the accident. As observed supra, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for their death and then deducted in proportion of 25% and 75% for being paid to claimants which has given rise to filing of this appeal by the claimant. 6. Coming first to the question relating to contributory negligence, I have no hesitation in reversing the finding on this issue in claimant's favour and hold that accident occurred solely due to negligence on the part of driver of tanker. 7. It is not in dispute that despite affording an opportunity to non applicants to prove that their defence, they failed to adduce any evidence. The best person who could prove the accident was the driver of tanker. He was in a position to enter in witness box and explain the manner in which the accident occurred and who was responsible for causing It. The best person who could prove the accident was the driver of tanker. He was in a position to enter in witness box and explain the manner in which the accident occurred and who was responsible for causing It. If the non applicants despite affording them an opportunity failed to tender the best available evidence and that too without there being any sufficient cause then the court has jurisdiction to draw adverse inference against them. In other words, in the absence of any cause, it can be assumed that non applicants i.e. Driver of tanker was responsible for causing the accident. 8. So far as claimant is concerned, he has proved his case by adducing evidence on the issue of negligence. The claimant himself was the eye witness because he was driving his Car. On perusal of his evidence, it is clearly established that tanker which was going ahead of claimant's car when suddenly it stopped with no prior indication to those coming behind the tanker. This amounts to negligence on the part of driver of tanker. It was for the driver of takner to have explained as to how and in what circumstances, he was compelled to stop his vehicle so suddenly and while doing so what precaution did he take to give alter to those who were following the tanker. He did not enter in witness box to give any evidence. A plea of contributory negligence is a question of fact. It is required to be pleaded and proved by adducing evidence. One cannot infer only on surmise. It is more so when one party has come out with a case of sole negligence of another driver and has also proved it by adducing evidence. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation in accepting the sworn testimony of claimant for holding that accident was caused due to sole negligence of driver of tanker. It is accordingly answered in claimant's favour by reversing the finding of the Tribunal on this issue. 9. This takes me to the next question as to the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal to claimants for the death of 2 persons. 10. As observed supra, so far as award of compensation for the death of wife is concerned, the Tribunal awarded to claimant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was then reduced to Rs. 9. This takes me to the next question as to the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal to claimants for the death of 2 persons. 10. As observed supra, so far as award of compensation for the death of wife is concerned, the Tribunal awarded to claimant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was then reduced to Rs. 75,000/- because claimant was held negligent in his driving to the extent of 25%. In my view, the compensation awarded for the death of wife is on lower side and hence deserves to be enhanced. It has come in evidence that Alpana was working as accountant prior to the date of accident. Looking to her age (27), qualification (graduate) and the potentiality is doing service, it can safely be taken that her yearly income was Rs. 15,000/-. Taking this figure as basis, we get a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for calculating dependency. After deducting ⅓rd and applying the multiplier of 17, we get a sum of Rs. 10,000 x 17 = Rs. 1,70,000/-. To this, we add by awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards consortium, such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, estate etc. This makes a total of Rs. 1,70,000. + 30,000 = Rs. 2,00,000/-. 11. In other words, the claimants are held entitled to claim a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of Alpana. 12. The compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of Alpana Is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 13. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 11. The enhancement sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. 14. 13. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above in para 11. The enhancement sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. 14. This takes me to the next case of son Asmit who was 2 years of age at the time of death. The Tribunal awarded to claimant a total sum of Rs. 501000/-. It is against this determination, the claimant seeks enhancement. 15. I have taken note of the judicial precedents on the issue of award of compensation in child death cases, report in 2001 ACJ 160 wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court while allowing the appeal filed by the New India Insurance Company awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the death of a child aged 9 years. I have seen the evidence of the present case. The boy i.e. Asmit was a hale and hearty one. He was aged 2 years but belonged to a good family. He had a good future due to his parental background. Taking into account all these factors, in my view, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of lump sum compensation inclusive of all other statutory compensation payable under the Act would meet the ends of justice. I, accordingly, consider it proper to award a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the claimants by way of compensation for the death of Asmit. 16. In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Asmit. 17. The compensation awarded to the claimant is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 18. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 18. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum awarded to claimant (appellant) i.e. Rs. 2 Lakh for the death of Alpana and Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of Asmit will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. respectively from the date of application till-realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge.Counsel fees Rs. 1,500/-, if certified.Appeal Allowed in Part. *******